Re: Perl Police (was Re: Bug#10405: package naming)
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> I think this naming scheme is quite reasonable. What does everyone else
> think about it?
What do you do if you do have a package turn up with an underscore
in its name?
> (I'm definitely against having more special characters in file names, as
> `+' or `:'.)
Personally I think it would be best to change the module name as
little as possible. '+' and ':' were at some point legal for package
names, according to deb-make's error messages and behavior. Perhaps
we should just ask a dpkg pro?
> This sounds as you've set up a "default procedure" of how to pack CPAN's
> module into .deb's. Great! I always thought of something like that but I
> never had time to do so.
Yes, I'm working on it at least. My next step is to add pod2html calls
so the Debian policy on using HTML when possible is satisfied. I am
doing this with an architecture subclass MM module for ExtUtils::MakeMaker
and a few very minor changes to MakeMaker.pm itself. You can examine
the work-in-progress at http://calyx.com/~bri/projects/Debian/
One of the goals here is for the packages to smartly determine
which other perl packages they depend upon by examining the
'use' and 'require' statements and such. This is already partly
done by MakeMaker, in fact there is an ALPHA test extension that
goes to the CPAN ftp archive to retrieve files you are lacking
automatically. All I need to to is harness the results of the
functions they are using for debian's purposes.
However I will end up with a major headache if I cannot reliably
map perl module names to debian package names. I'd prefer it to
be pretty, but definitely need it to be functional. It's bad enough
that the case-folding runs me the risk of collisions between module
names.
> Since CPAN's modules all apply to a certain "standard" (i.e. all makefiles
> have the same structure) such a default procedure is definitely a good
> thing. (Perhaps we could add this functionality to deb-make. If it
> discovers a CPAN module it could set up everything for the maintainer
> automatically and he/she would just have to fill in the description, etc.)
Yes, I was thinking that my MM_Debian_Linux.pm file could be distributed
in the deb-make package.
Answer me a question -- I see a lot of newer debian packages using
"./debian/stamp-build" as the stamp target yet deb-make and
dpkg-buildpackage seem to like to touch and clean "./build", which I
suppose is obsolete behavior. I note though that the "hello" package
still uses it. Is there a good example of a modern debian/rules
file available? I'd be willing to mail the maintainer of deb-make
a patch to modernize it.
Thanx
--
Brian S. Julin
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: